• Home
  • About Dave
    • What is the Process?
    • My Professional Experience
  • Practice Areas
    • Arbitration
    • Mediation
    • Corporate Disputes
    • Franchise & Distribution Disputes
    • Financing & Lender Liability Disputes
    • Electronic Discovery Mediation & Special Master
    • Title IX / Title VII Investigations
  • News & Blog
  • Contact

Contact me (203) 641-0991

David ReifDavid Reif
David ReifDavid Reif
  • Home
  • About Dave
    • What is the Process?
    • My Professional Experience
  • Practice Areas
    • Arbitration
    • Mediation
    • Corporate Disputes
    • Franchise & Distribution Disputes
    • Financing & Lender Liability Disputes
    • Electronic Discovery Mediation & Special Master
    • Title IX / Title VII Investigations
  • News & Blog
  • Contact

ADR Highlights: April 21, 2021

Home NewsADR Highlights: April 21, 2021

ADR Highlights: April 21, 2021

News

Very sparse pickings among cases published in the last two days.  But here is what is available. The good side is that there may be more of interest to drafters than usual. 

Commencement of statute of limitations; LMRA

Communications Workers v. Bellsouth Telecommunications, LLC, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11354 (11th Cir. April 20, 2021) is primarily of interest to those handling labor arbitrations, as the court considers the statute of limitations for a union seeking to compel arbitration under the Labor Management Relations Act.  Georgia state law, which the court applies, requires that the party seeking to compel arbitration commence an action within six months of the date “when one party unequivocally refuses to arbitrate the dispute.”  The District Court held that the union failed to meet that deadline and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant, thus denying arbitration.  The Court of Appeals, in a per curiam opinion by Judges Newsom, Luck and Anderson, reverses.  The parties had exchanged a string of emails discussing arbitration.  While the District Judge looked to an early email from BellSouth stating that “it didn’t believe the grievance could be arbitrated under the collective bargaining agreement” as the commencement date for the running of the statute of limitations, the Court of Appeals considers the parties’ string of communications to be merely an exchange of thoughts over timing and other issues and that “the parties could return to arbitration in the future if their discussions were unsuccessful.” Therefore, the court holds, there was no “unequivocal” refusal by the Company arbitrate, only a potential delay; the union’s application to compel was, accordingly, timely.

Employee handbooks and arbitration clauses

Glazier v. True North Energy, LLC, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74257 (E.D. Mich. April 19, 2021) is illuminating to those drafting H.R. policy handbooks and who want to mandate arbitration of disputes between employer and employee.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendant failed to pay them overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  True North moved to compel arbitration under the provisions of a dispute resolution process contained in its employee handbook.  The court, Leitman, J., denies the motion, holding that the handbook did not create a contract between employer and employee. In fact, the court holds, the “Handbook expressly disclaimed the creation of any binding obligations” (Emphasis in original).  Further, Judge Leitman opines, because the company reserved the right “in its sole discretion, [to] modify or vary from anything stated in the [Handbook], with or without notice. . . ,” any purported agreement to arbitrate was merely “illusory.”  Finding no agreement to arbitrate, the court denies defendant’s motion to compel.  It distinguishes authorities in which the arbitration clause was contained in a separate document or in which the handbook contained “no express language that its terms [were] not intended to create an enforceable agreement” (Brackets in original).

FAA preemption of state prohibitions against arbitration

Wyche v. KM Systems, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74887 (E.D.N.Y. April 19, 2021) is one more case holding that New York’s  statute prohibiting mandatory arbitration of discrimination claims, CPLR § 7515, is preempted by the FAA.  The decision by Judge Matsumoto contains a useful list of other decisions so holding.

Three-month limit for a motion to vacate an award

Quest International Monitor Service, Inc. v. Rockwell Collins, Inc. 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11402 (9th Cir. April 20, 2021)(Smith and Ikuta, Circuit Judges, and Vratil, District Judge sitting by designation) reaffirms the three-month window established by Section 12 of the FAA for serving an application to vacate an arbitration.  In doing so, the court specifically rejects any reliance upon state law statutes of limitations under the Erie doctrine.

Inclusion of employees under an arbitration clause

For those reviewing and redrafting their arbitration agreements, Lopez v. BMW Tech. Corp., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74215 (N.D. Ill. April 19, 2021) counsels thinking broadly about those whom you wish to receive the benefit of the clause and phrasing it accordingly.  Lopez worked for Creative Circle, an employment staffing firm. She was assigned to BMW Technology, a Creative Circle client.  As part of her contract with Creative Circle, Lopez executed an arbitration clause which encompassed claims against “Creative Circle, LLC, its affiliates, subsidiaries, parent company and clients with which Employee is assigned or employed.” Lopez alleges that a BMW executive, Reuter, struck her while at a company outing; when she complained, BMW announced she would no longer be working there and Creative Circle did not give her any alternative placement, effectively terminating her. She sued BMW, Creative Circle, and Reuter, but referred the BMW and Creative Circle claims to arbitration.  Reuter move to compel arbitration of the claims against him, basing his argument on the arbitration agreement between Lopez and Creative Circle.  Judge Kennelly denies the motion to compel, holding that the arbitration clause extends only to BMW,  not to BMW’s employee, Reuter, as his employer, not he, was Creative Circle’s “client.” “It would have been relatively easy to include language in the contract extending its benefits to employees or agents of clients, but there is no such language.  Reuter’s contention would require adding terms to the contract, which is not how contracts are appropriately read.”   Those drafting arbitration agreements may be well-advised to specifically include the “employees” of any third-party beneficiaries if they want to be sure to encompass them within the ambit of arbitration.

Literature

There is an interesting and, considering the pendency of Servotronics v. Rolls-Royce before SCOTUS, timely article on the history and underlying public policy of 28 U.S.C. § 1782 in the current edition of the always-great ABA Litigation Section magazine, Shapiro, “Statute without a Home,” 47 Litigation No. 3 (Spring 2021). Whether or not one agrees with the author’s conclusions, it is a good read.

Hopefully, there will be some more meat for these bones on Friday.  See you then.

David A. Reif
Reif ADR
Dreif@reifadr.com
Reifadr.com

Share
0

About David Reif

After four decades of litigation and dispute resolution over the full range of disputes, Dave retired from active trial practice and is concentrating on the provision of arbitration and mediation services. He brings broad experience in resolving - as litigator, a mediator, and arbitrator - all types of disputes. Learn more about Dave!

You also might be interested in

ADR Highlights: November 11, 2020

Nov 11, 2020

Usually litigators and trial lawyers are the audience for a[...]

ADR Highlights: January 10, 2023

Jan 10, 2023

To the extent that there is a theme to this[...]

ADR Highlights: July 21, 2021

Jul 21, 2021

While there are no blockbusters today, these District Court opinions[...]

Leave a Reply

Your email is safe with us.
Cancel Reply

Dedicated to quick and effective resolution

Click here to schedule your case with Dave...
SCHEDULE NOW

Learn about Dave

professional experience, training, articles, awards, etc...
VIEW DAVE'S RESUME

PRACTICE AREAS

  • Arbitration
  • Mediation
  • Corporate Disputes
  • Franchise & Distribution Disputes
  • Financing & Lender Liability Disputes
  • Electronic Discovery Mediation & Special Master
  • Title IX / Title VII Investigations

Recent News & Updates

  • ADR Highlights: February 22, 2023
  • ADR Highlights: February 13, 2023
  • ADR Highlights: February 7, 2023
  • ADR Highlights: February 3, 2023
  • ADR Highlights: January 31, 2023
  • ADR Highlights: January 27, 2023
  • ADR Highlights: January 10, 2023
  • ADR Highlights: January 6, 2023
  • ADR Highlights: December 30, 2022
  • ADR Highlights: December 27, 2022

Contact Us

We're currently offline. Send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Send Message
CONTACT DAVE
Logo

Contact Dave Today

CONTACT DAVE

  • David Reif - Arbitrator & Mediator
  • 25 Riverwalk, Branford, CT 06405
  • (203) 641-0991
  • dreif@reifadr.com
  • https://reifadr.com/
Loading

© 2023 · David A Reif · All Rights Reserved

Prev Next